Sunday, March 31, 2013

BENGHAZI-GATE: Obama's Plan with Muslim Brotherhood to Kidnap Amb Stevens and then Rescue Him for October Surprise?
This may have some legs to it.

Remember, Obama supposedly had a secret meeting with the Brotherhood in the White House earlier in the year:


Obama Administration held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood, planning post-Mubarak government

[link to www.jihadwatch.org]


Did Obama Stage Benghazi Attack?


According to someone high up in White House circles, Barack Obama, wanting an “October Surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador. Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obama’s strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero.

Unfortunately for Ambassador Stevens and three others, the Brotherhood could not control the hired thugs that were to perform the kidnapping and things escalated and four American lives were lost. Panic set in at the White House and with little time to place blame as far away from Obama as they could, they settled on a ridiculous fairy tale about an irrelevant video posted four months prior on YouTube and ran with it. Barack Obama even ran with it after evidence showed he knew better and ran with it all the way to his speech at the U.N.

[link to www.westernjournalism.com]
DoorBert (OP)
  

User ID: 857877
United States
10/15/2012 04:24 PM

Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BENGHAZI-GATE: Obama's Plan with Muslim Brotherhood to Kidnap Amb Stevens and then Rescue Him for October Surprise?
The fellow who wrote this take suggests that in Chicago it was well known that both Amb. Stevesn, his lover and Obama were flaming Queens, and in one take he even suggested that a dead Ambassador was a preferred outcome, he can talk-no more:

[link to hillbuzz.org]
Xannixon
Offer Upgrade
  

User ID: 1676485
United States
10/15/2012 04:25 PM
Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BENGHAZI-GATE: Obama's Plan with Muslim Brotherhood to Kidnap Amb Stevens and then Rescue Him for October Surprise?
SOunds totally legit to me
TARDS UNITE!
DoorBert (OP)
  

User ID: 870568
United States
10/15/2012 04:25 PM

Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BENGHAZI-GATE: Obama's Plan with Muslim Brotherhood to Kidnap Amb Stevens and then Rescue Him for October Surprise?
There’s speculation here in Chicago that Obama couldn’t wait until 2016 for health reasons. Most people on the ground here think Obama has “The Slims”, and that his health will have deteriorated to the point that by 2016 he’d be a gaunt, walking skeleton with all the telltale signs of depending on daily anti-viral cocktails. Others — like me personally — believe Obama has Parkinsons and this, too, would have been far too obvious by 2016 for him to win a national election. He’s already disoriented, bewildered in public, and unable to function on even a basic level without a TelePrompTer. He’s either got “The Slims” or Parkinsons or a serious narcotics addiction…so the man who is the current president of the United States is either sick or a junkie and Democrats needed him in office as quickly as possible (so, Hillary be damned).

[link to hillbuzz.org]
Xannixon
Offer Upgrade
  

User ID: 1676485
United States
10/15/2012 04:27 PM
Send Private Msg
Add to Buddy List
Add to Ignore List
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BENGHAZI-GATE: Obama's Plan with Muslim Brotherhood to Kidnap Amb Stevens and then Rescue Him for October Surprise?
There’s speculation here in Chicago that Obama couldn’t wait until 2016 for health reasons. Most people on the ground here think Obama has “The Slims”, and that his health will have deteriorated to the point that by 2016 he’d be a gaunt, walking skeleton with all the telltale signs of depending on daily anti-viral cocktails. Others — like me personally — believe Obama has Parkinsons and this, too, would have been far too obvious by 2016 for him to win a national election. He’s already disoriented, bewildered in public, and unable to function on even a basic level without a TelePrompTer. He’s either got “The Slims” or Parkinsons or a serious narcotics addiction…so the man who is the current president of the United States is either sick or a junkie and Democrats needed him in office as quickly as possible (so, Hillary be damned).

[link to hillbuzz.org]
 Quoting: DoorBert


I was reading some articles about how he is showing signs of drug withdrawl

Former CIA Officer: Obama Administration let Ambassador Stevens die


Your browser does not support iframes.
Part 2 of the interview is below. Scroll down for Part 1
Glenn invited Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, onto his TV show Monday night to discuss the attack on the U.S. embassy on Benghazi. Lopez has written extensively on the situation in Libya, as well as on Ambassador Stevens’s connections to jihadist groups in Libya and Syria.
“What went on in Benghazi had it’s roots much further back,” Lopez told Glenn.
Lopez believed, much as Glenn does, that Ambassador Stevens was in Lybia for reasons still not known publicly to the American people.
“It was to act as official U.S. government liaison to Al Queda linked jihadist militias. And they would include some of the same people now trying to overthrow Assad in Syria,” Lopez said.
She wrote of the events:
During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.
Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.
Lopez, who was a CIA officer for twenty years, told Glenn that she had seen agents come under heavy fire in the past, but there were always people and assets who assembled to come to their aid. She found it unusual that with all the surveillance the White House and the administration had on the embassy that more was not done to provide aid.
“I have never seen a situation where a facility was under attack like that and nothing happens.

Lopez added that Stevens knew he was a potential Al Queda target and lacked the security he needed to be in the country. Requests for increased security were denied by the State Department prior to the attacks on September 11th.
She also said it was her opinion  that James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and General David Petraeus are all aware of what really happened in Libya.
“This has to be brought out. This has to be made known to the public. That this is going on and that our administration was not only working with the bad guys. Was working with Al Queda linked militas and jiihadis to overthrow Assad in Syria but that they let our mission go down. They let our ambassador and others die. In real time, watching it happen, and they didn’t do anything about it,” Lopez said.

Arms Flow to Syria May Be Behind Benghazi Cover-Up

Thu, October 18, 2012
by: 
Clare Lopez
State Dept. Charlene Lamb testifies before Congress. The storage building in question is the yellow box on the right side. (Photo: Reuters)The day after the big Obama-Romney debate, as media and politicians were engaging in the usual after-action assessment frenzy, some of the most important issues surrounding the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, remain unaddressed.
While it clearly matters (a lot) if and when the President told the truth to the American public about the terrorist nature of that attack and why the Department of State refused repeated pleas from its own diplomats in Libya for more and better security, the deeper, unaddressed issue is about the relationship of the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya with Al Qaeda.
During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.
Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.
Although Belhadj reportedly now has moved on to Syria to help lead the fight against the Assad regime being waged by the Syrian Free Army (SFA), other Libyan fighters, who were formerly members of his LIFG and other Al Qaeda affiliates formed a new terror militia in Libya (and elsewhere) called Ansar al-Shariah (Supporters of Sharia/Islamic Law).
According to an August, 2012 report from the Library of Congress and the Kronos organization, “Al-Qaeda in Libya: A Profile,” Ansar al-Shariah is an Al Qaeda franchise operation, established in Libya with the assistance of senior Al Qaeda operatives dispatched from Pakistan specifically to supervise the set up of a new clandestine Al Qaeda network in Libya that would refrain from using the Al Qaeda name.
The Derna, Libya Ansar al-Shariah cell is led by a former GITMO detainee named Sufian Ben Qhumu. The September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate compound that killed Ambassador Stevens, his staffer Sean Smith and the two Navy SEALs was directed and led by Ansar al-Shariah.
One of the key unanswered, even unasked, questions about the U.S. and Ambassador Stevens relationship with Abdelhakim Belhadj concerns not so much the 2011 period of the Libyan revolt, but rather what followed. Was Ambassador Stevens still in touch with Belhadj and/or other Al Qaeda-linked figures even after Belhadj traveled to Istanbul, Turkey, in November, 2011 to make contact with the Syrian Free Army?
According to August, 2012 reports leaked to the media, sometime earlier in 2012, President Obama signed an intelligence finding to permit the CIA and other US government agencies to provide support to the Syrian rebels, whose ranks are reported to be dominated by Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist fighters who already are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other jihadist regimes. Was Belhadj a conduit for U.S. support, perhaps via Turkey?  
It might be recalled that, according to the Department of State’s transcript of a October 9, 2012 telephone conference call held to brief reporters on what happened in Benghazi, the final meeting that Ambassador Stevens held the night of September 11, 2012 before the attack began was with a Turkish diplomat.
Was that the meeting that was so important that the ambassador felt compelled to slip into Al Qaeda-held Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks, knowing that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had called for revenge for the killing of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, concerned that he might have been on an Al Qaeda hit list and fully aware that he was terribly exposed with completely inadequate security? Was Ambassador Stevens directing a weapons pipeline from Libya to the Syrian rebels with Turkish assistance?    
As noted by at least one observant blogger, two buildings appear on the overhead image of the Benghazi consular compound that may be viewed behind State Department official Charlene Lamb during her October 10, 2012 Congressional testimony but were not mentioned at all in the  October 9, 2012 briefing mentioned above. Might these two warehouse-like buildings be storage facilities for Libyan weapons either bought back or otherwise collected prior to onward shipment?  
The New York Times reported in July, 2012 that CIA officers were operating out of southern Turkey to help channel weapons to fighters supposedly not allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. In a October 14 piece, though, the Times asserted flatly that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups…” And while U.S. officials continue to stick to claims that they are not providing arms directly to the Syrian rebels, but only channeling weapons that come from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, reports that those rebels now have surface-to-air missiles call to mind the thousands of such weapons looted from Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the revolt that ousted him in October 2011.
On October 17, 2012, Reuters reported that the Syrian rebels had acquired surface-to-air missiles, forcing the Syrian government air force to conduct bombings from higher altitudes. An August, 2012 video posted online purports to show a Syrian government helicopter hit with an anti-aircraft missile, on fire and spiraling to the ground, where it exploded into a fireball.
Many questions remain about what happened in Benghazi that night, not least of which is why Belhadj and Ansar al-Shariah would turn on Stevens, who had been their staunch if naïve ally, when his killing in the course of the attack on the consulate likely would end any weapons supply to the Syrian rebels he might have been directing.
Was marking the 9/11 date with revenge for the death of al-Libi more important in the eyes of Al Qaeda than the preservation of this particular weapons source? Were there weapons in those two buildings on September 11, 2012 and were they looted that night? Had Stevens and/or the U.S. somehow failed to come through with an understood commitment of some kind?
In any case, false information about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi being the fault of an online video that seems to have originated with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) James Clapper (perhaps with the collaboration of CIA Director David Petraeus) was put out and repeated by senior administration officials for days following the attack.
“[F]alse information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons,” says Bill Gertz, citing intelligence officials. Some of those alleged “political reasons” may have had to do with ridiculous claims about the demise of Al Qaeda and the false promises of an “Arab Spring,” but others may be more deeply buried in an Al Qaeda-linked weapons supply line that was never supposed to become public.
Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

ALLEN WEST BACK STABBED US ALL HE SUPPORTS OBAMA

Sheriff Joe Lead Investigator Talks Obama Doc Fraud & Claims THIS IS A F...: http://youtu.be/W1Tqh55h-iM via @youtube

Benghazi Survivors: Are They Not Being Allowed To Speak Because Of This?


blind-sheikh-600x350
There have been a number of theories about what took place in Benghazi and why. Of course, we are aware of the administration’s obvious lies about a bogus YouTube video being the cause. I’ve also written on the fact that some believe that the attacks in Benghazi took place as a result of an international Fast and Furious by the Obama administration. As questions arise about where the the Benghazi survivors are and why they are being silenced, Republican congressmen have called on Secretary of State John Kerry to bring them forward. However, is the reason that the Benghazi survivors are not being allowed to speak, but instead are virtual prisoners for the past eight months, is because they would destroy each of the stories that have gained prominence and end up proving that the Benghazi attack was really a bungled abduction attempt?
Back on November 14, 2012, retired Four-Star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons was a guest on Lou Dobbs Tonight and suggested that the attack in Benghazi, Libya was a result of a bungled abduction attempt. Many of the readers of this blog are aware of that while some are not.
Admiral Lyons’ career in the United States Navy included two years of service as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. His speculation is that the kidnapping was planned to be a first stage in an international prisoner exchange, which included the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheik” who was convicted of orchestrating the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993.
Lyons has put forth that the Obama administration softened security in Benghazi to reduce the possibility that resistance would be minimal as the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization kidnapped Ambassador Chris Stevens. They just were not counting on Americans to step up and resist, like those brave souls which included former U.S. Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Department information manager Sean Smith. Woods and Doherty, ignored order to “stand down.”
In a piece published by the Western Center for Journalism, Kris Zane cited an anonymous source inside the White House that explained that Benghazi was to be used for political gain for Barack Obama, indicating that the goal was two-fold. The first was to be able to release Abdel Rahman which would be “palatable to the American people” and second, it would be an “October surprise for Obama.” In doing this, Obama would be seen as having won the release of Stevens, thus boosting his approval ratings heading into the 2012 elections.
Zane then produced a video and published it on October 25, 2012 that detailed the research and findings conducted to the conclusion, which you can see below.
Additionally, Alex Newman, writing at The New American, pointed out that the official report by the U.S. government’s Accountability Review Board not only omitted, but failed to even raise some of the most glaring questions about the Benghazi attacks. Those questions are:
• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?

• Did that half-baked scheme to arm Jihadist leaders, who as the report acknowledges had previously fought U.S. troops in Iraq, contribute to the attack, as countless experts and officials have suggested?

• What was actually going on at the compound in Benghazi, which as the report states, was never a “consulate” despite establishment media claims?

• Was Ambassador Stevens recruiting and arming Jihadists and terrorists to wage war on the Syrian regime after what Obama called the “success” in Libya, as a growing body of credible evidence suggests?

• Why did the administration claim for so long that the attack was just a “protest” over a YouTube video gone awry, even when it knew definitively that was not the case?

• Was the lack of security at the compound a political ploy to conceal the extent of the lawlessness and utter chaos left in the wake of Obama’s unconstitutional “regime change” war on Libya, as even members of Congress have alleged?
My guess is this. The Benghazi survivors continue to be, in essence, prisoners of the government because their accounts just might tell us exactly what the Benghazi attacks were all about. After all, Benghazi survivors would have more than likely heard discussions taking place during the attacks and could testify to that, along with who was actually there and they could provide detailed information of what actually took place to the American people. The story seems very plausible to me. The problem seems to be getting Republicans to move on this issue and not ask, but demand these survivors come forward and testify as a matter of national security.
If Barack Obama was playing games with the lives of Americans, including an American ambassador, for his own political gain, then the truth needs to come out and justice needs to be done.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/benghazi-survivors-are-they-not-being-allowed-to-speak-because-of-this/#ixzz2PApQzoHA

DHS writes to Banks:May inspect safe deposit boxes & seize contents w/ no warrants

Default DHS writes to Banks:May inspect safe deposit boxes & seize contents w/ no warrants

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS TOLD BANKS - IN WRITING - IT MAY INSPECT SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES WITHOUT WARRANT AND SIEZE ANY GOLD, SILVER, GUNS OR OTHER VALUABLES IT FINDS INSIDE THOSE BOXES!

According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes."

Further, the DHS "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence" any of the following items "bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature."

DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases "improper" "classified DHS Security information" to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and "any other party, to include members of the media" and further "that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act." Safety deposit box holders and depositors are not given advanced notice when failed banks shut their doors.

If people have their emergency money in a safe deposit box or an account in a bank that closes, they will not be allowed into the bank to get it out. They can knock on the door and beg to get in but the sheriff’s department or whoever is handling the closure will simply say “no” because they are just following orders.

Deposit box and account holders are not warned of the hazards of banking when they sign up. It is not until they need to get their cash or valuables out in a hurry that they find themselves in trouble.

Rules governing access to safe deposit boxes and money held in accounts are written into the charter of each bank. The charter is the statement of policy under which the bank is allowed by the government to do business. These rules are subject to change at any time by faceless bureaucrats who are answerable to no one. They can be changed without notice, without the agreement of the people, and against their will. People can complain but no one will care because this is small potatoes compared to the complaints that will be voiced when the executive order that governs national emergencies is enforced.

That order allows the suspension of habeas corpus and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

A look at the fine print of the contract signed when a safety deposit box is opened reveals that in essence the signer has given to the bank whatever property he has put into that deposit box. When times are good people will be allowed open access to their safe deposit box and the property that is in it. This also applies to their bank accounts.

But when times get really bad, many may find that the funds they have placed on deposit and the property they thought was secured in the safe deposit box now belong to the bank, not to them. Although this was probably not explained to them when they signed their signature card, this is what they were agreeing to.

During the Great Depression in the early 1930’s people thought that many banks were going to fail. They were afraid they would lose their money so they went in mass to take it out, in what is known as a run on the banks. The government closed the banks to protect them from angry depositors who wanted their money back. Throughout history, governments have acted to protect the interests of banks and the wealthy people who own them, not the interests of depositors or box holders.

In a time of emergency, people will have no recourse if access to their safe deposit box and bank accounts is denied. If they are keeping money in a bank that would be needed in an emergency or in a time when credit is no longer free flowing, they may not be able to get it out of the bank. The emergency may occur at night or on a weekend or holiday when the bank is closed. --snip -- Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.ph...#ixzz1Cq3ARsG8

And for more interesting breaking news: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi

Department of State Publication 7277

The United States Program For General and Complete Disarmament In A Peaceful World, U.S. State DepartmentTHE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
For sale by the Superintendent ot Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D.C.

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced, at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations, a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:
  1. First, there must be immediate disarmament action:
      A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.
  2. Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:
  3. The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.
  4. Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:
      There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.


FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
TASKS OF NEGOTIATING STATES
The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:
  • As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
  • Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
  • Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
  • Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
  • Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:
  • The nuclear threat would be reduced.
  • All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
  • The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
  • States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
  • States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
  • A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
  • Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
  • Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
  • Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
  • The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.I million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
  • An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
  • Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
  • The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
  • States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
  • U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
  • Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangementS for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
  • An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
  • Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
  • It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
  • It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
  • States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
  • States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
  • A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
  • States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:
  • Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
  • Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
  • Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
  • Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
  • On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
  • The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
  • The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:
  • States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
  • The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
  • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

APPENDIX

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD


The Nations of the world,

Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideologicaldifferences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
  1. The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  2. The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  3. The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
  4. The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
  1. To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
  2. To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
  3. Also to seek - without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program - agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
  1. Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
  2. Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
  3. Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
  4. As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
  5. Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
  • (a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
  • (b) The IDO shall have:
    1. a General Conference of all the parties;
    2. a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and
    3. an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
  • (c) The IDO shall:
    1. ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon;
    2. assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures;
    3. provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament;
    4. receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.
B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
  • (a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.I million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
  • (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
  • (c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
  • (d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.
C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
  • (a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
  • (b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
  • (c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
  • (d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
  • (e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
  • (f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
  • (a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
  • (b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
  • (c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.
E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
  • (a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
  • (b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.
F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
  • (a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
  • (b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
  • (c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
  • (d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.
G. To Keep the Peace:
  • (a)States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force including nuclear, conventional, or CBR - contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
  • (b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
  • (c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
  • (d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
  • (e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace

STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
  • The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.
B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
  • (a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
  • (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
  • (c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
  • (d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
  • (e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
  • Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.
D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
  • Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.
E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
  • (a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
  • (b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
  • (c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.
The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
  • (a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
  • (b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
  • (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • (d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 11161 O-609147


Send Al Colombo MailSend me your comments please
Alicia Colombo, 1995The Beginning or End
By Alicia Colombo

Copyright©1999, 2000
Allan B. Colombo
Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu

Obama issues Executive Order to investigate voter suppression

President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order today, March 28, which will set up the Presidential Commission of Election Administration.
The Commission will consist of 9 members appointed by the President and have two co-chairs. Those appointed will have experience and or knowledge of “Federal, State or local elections”.
“The Commission shall be composed of not more than nine members appointed by the President. The members shall be drawn from among distinguished individuals with knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections, as well as representatives of successful customer service-oriented businesses, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission.”
The Commission will be making recommendations that will “promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay”
“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”
The Commission will be holding public meetings with Federal, State and local officials. The commission will consider the following:
  • The number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places
  • The training, recruitment, and number of poll workers
  • Voting accessibility for uniformed and overseas voters
  • The efficient management of voter rolls and poll books
  • Voting machine capacity and technology
  • Ballot simplicity and voter education
  • Voting accessibility for individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and other special needs
  • Management of issuing and processing provisional ballots in the polling place on Election Day
  • The issues presented by the administration of absentee ballot programs
  • The adequacy of contingency plans for natural disasters and other emergencies that may disrupt elections
In the months leading up to the November 2012 General Election, several States passed legislation that made it harder for people to vote. Laws were passed that cut early voting hours, new voter ID laws that were convoluted, the purging of voter rolls of voters who voted for a particular party and limiting the number of electronic voting machines in some districts which caused long lines and waits of up to 9 hours. These are just a few of the voter suppression laws passed in some States.
These suppression laws and several others will be investigated by the Commission.
Don't miss any of the National Elections Examiner articles: Click the Subscribe button and enter your E-mail address. You’ll be alerted to the latest column when it's published. You can also click the E-mail button so you can send your favorite article to a friend. You can also follow on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Obama Trying To “Nationalize” Elections By Executive Order?


They must grab all operations that may be independent. If they get this, then no one will be elected of whom they do not approve.
Via Breitbart:
President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order Thursday establishing a Presidential Commission to deal with “election administration” that critics say is an attempt to nationalize the country’s elections for partisan advantage.
The Executive Order states the Commission “shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay.”
The Commission will focus on polling places, how better to train and recruit poll workers, managing voter rolls and poll books, voting machines, ballot simplicity, English proficiency, and absentee ballots. The states–not the federal government–traditionally have responsibility over such matters.
Obama will appoint no more than nine members to the Commission and appointees will be drawn from among individuals with “knowledge about or experience in the administration of State or local elections, as well as representatives of successful customer service-oriented businesses, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission.”
Keep reading…

• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place? Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/benghazi-survivors-are-they-not-being-allowed-to-speak-because-of-this/#ixzz2PASj19Uw

• What was the Obama administration’s full role in helping violent Jihadists, self-styled al Qaeda terrorists, and Western-backed “revolutionaries” take over Libya in the first place?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/benghazi-survivors-are-they-not-being-allowed-to-speak-because-of-this/#ixzz2PASj19Uw

Libya: Now What?

Written by 
Gadhafi is now dead. After more than four decades of brutalizing the Libyan people, he died a brutal death. His convoy was hit by NATO bombs as it fled the city of Sirte. Western-backed revolutionaries finished the job, wildly shouting “Allahu Akbar” — usually translated as “God is great” — as they ripped his hair out, smashed his face in, and finally, put the fatal bullet through his skull. American officials celebrated the ghoulish announcement.
“We came. We saw. He died,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said upon hearing the news, borrowing a slightly modified version of the famous phrase attributed to Roman emperor Julius Caesar. Western leaders and lawmakers rushed to release public statements hailing the “success” and “liberation” of Libya to the press.

Tyrant as “Important Ally”

But Gadhafi wasn’t always the enemy. In fact, despite decades of supporting terror and murdering dissidents, his regime was considered an “important ally” in the U.S. terror war as recently as late 2009. And according to an American diplomatic cable from Tripoli released by WikiLeaks, the bond was only getting stronger.

A high-level U.S. delegation that included several senior Senators, such as John McCain and Joe Lieberman, visited the despot himself, singing his praises, boasting about training his military officers in America, and begging for a closer bilateral relationship between the two governments. Senator McCain even promised to seek out more American “security” equipment for the regime.

In 2006, then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” as “a model” for other governments to emulate. While announcing that the regime was being welcomed back to the international community, Rice also praised Gadhafi’s “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world.”

Western leaders of all stripes flocked to Tripoli to praise the Libyan tyrant. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair forged a particularly close bond with the despot. Time magazine wrote an article explaining to confused Americans “Why Gaddafi’s Now a Good Guy.” And President George W. Bush even called him up for a friendly chat.

Even a decade ago — before Gadhafi really agreed to give up his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs — Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA, had a cozy relationship with the regime. According to a report in the New York Times based on documents found in Libya during the civil war, the U.S. government sent numerous suspects to the regime for “interrogation” despite its well-known use of brutality and torture.
Back then, the Libyan government was helping the West to pursue Islamic extremists, many of whom were also waging “Jihad” against Gadhafi. But by 2011, those same Muslim radicals — some intimately linked to al-Qaeda, others who had been imprisoned in Guantanamo or tortured by the U.S. government — were being armed and trained by the West.

Gadhafi Becomes the Enemy

“Revolution” was in the air. Citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern and North African nations were apparently rising up spontaneously against their oppressive masters. Then, on February 17, it spread to Benghazi, one of Libya’s most important cities.

Exactly what happened remains in dispute. According to the official narrative at the time, Gadhafi hired mercenaries to brutally massacre innocent civilian protesters asking for “democracy.” His air force, meanwhile, indiscriminately dropped bombs on Libyan civilians. Among the most astounding claims, made by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Gadhafi gave his forces “Viagra” to go on a “rape-spree.” Genocide was sure to follow, Obama insisted.

Nearly all of those allegations were later shown to be false. The Russian military said it was monitoring Libyan air space and no such aerial bombings took place. Human-rights investigators found that the “mercenaries” were actually just regular Libyan soldiers. Claims that civilians were deliberately targeted were also proven false, with the New York Times writing that the rebels felt “no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda.” Even U.S. military and intelligence officials later conceded that the preposterous “Viagra” claims were unfounded.

Gadhafi, on the other hand, had a much different account. He claimed drug-fueled al-Qaeda terrorists and foreign powers were terrorizing the civilian population, attacking police and military installations, and generally wreaking havoc across Eastern Libya. Appearing on TV, he vowed that there would be “no mercy” in crushing the insurgency. But though barely reported in the Western media, Gadhafi also offered an escape route for insurgents via Egypt and amnesty to rebels who put down their weapons.

The evidence favors Gadhafi’s version of events. Of course, Gadhafi’s past rec-ord of human rights abuses does make his claims suspect, to say the least. But how about the veracity of the rebels? As The New American reported early on, numerous current and former al-Qaeda leaders — as well as other affiliated extremists who boasted of having battled U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan — were largely leading the rebellion. And they had been armed and trained by foreign powers including the U.S. government well before the “international community” officially intervened.

“Evidence is now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,” noted University of Texas public affairs professor Alan Kuperman, an expert on humanitarian intervention, in a piece for the Boston Globe.

Consider: “Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women,” Kuperman explained. “If Khadafy [sic] were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.”

War on Gadhafi

But it didn’t matter that Gadhafi’s story was (oddly enough) probably closer to the truth than the Western narrative — the war propaganda had already taken on a life of its own. The United Nations Security Council hastily convened on March 17. And with five abstentions, it approved Resolution 1973, which purported to authorize a “no-fly zone” and “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians.” That was Obama’s cue.

“Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced,” Obama declared two days later during a visit to Brazil. “Today I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun.”

Without consulting Congress — let alone obtaining a declaration of war, which Obama himself admitted was required while on the campaign trail — the President committed U.S. forces to a UN mission that was supposed to last days or weeks, not months. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle exploded. But Hillary Clinton assured them that the administration would ignore Congress anyway.

Days came and went as NATO began to drop bombs — sometimes on civilians and key civil infrastructure. The weeks quickly turned into months. Obama and other Western leaders demanded that Gadhafi step down so that he could be prosecuted for war crimes at the “International Criminal Court.” But by mid-October — tens of thousands of Western air sorties later — Gadhafi’s forces were still fighting in Western Libya.

Al-Qaeda & Co. Become Allies

As Gadhafi became public enemy number one, other veteran foes of the U.S. government suddenly went from dangerous terrorists to democratic “freedom fighters.” Most prominent among the terror groups that became Western allies was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

According to a 2007 study entitled “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq” by the U.S. military, the organization had an “increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa’ida on November 3, 2007.” Before that, former CIA boss George Tenet warned the U.S. Senate in 2004 that al-Qaeda-linked groups like the LIFG represented “one of the most immediate threats” to American security.

The LIFG was still named on the U.S. State Department’s most recent list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, released on September 15, 2011. Ironically, this would make the Obama administration complicit in unlawfully providing material support to terrorist groups — a very serious crime for regular citizens. And even though ignorance is no excuse, the U.S. government admitted early on it knew what was happening. NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Admiral James Stavridis, for example, told a Senate committee in the first month of the conflict that there were “flickers” of al-Qaeda within the Libyan rebellion.

But in the battle to bring down the Gadhafi regime, it did not matter. Western powers were literally arming, training, organizing, and offering air support to the very same jihadists who just a few years earlier were killing American troops. There are countless examples, but three will suffice to prove the point:

Abdelhakim Belhaj: Before leading his powerful militia against Gadhafi and being appointed the chief of Tripoli’s rebel Military Council, Belhaj was the co-founder and leader of the notorious LIFG. Eventually the terror “Emir,” as he has been called, was arrested and tortured as an American prisoner in the terror war. In 2004, according to reports, he was transferred by the CIA to the Gadhafi regime — then a nominal U.S. terror-war ally.

Belhaj was freed in 2010 by Gadhafi under an amnesty agreement for “former” terrorists. And more recently, the terror leader and his men were trained by U.S. special forces to take on Gadhafi. His leadership is now well established, and he continues to rule in Tripoli. More than likely, analysts say, he will end up being a key figure in the new regime.

A few reporters did highlight the seriousness of having a well-known terrorist in charge of the Libyan capital. Journalist Pepe Escobar, one of the first to report the news of Belhaj’s rise to power in Tripoli, explained in the Asia Times: “Every intelligence agency in the US, Europe and the Arab world knows where he’s coming from. He’s already made sure in Libya that himself and his militia will only settle for Sharia law.”

Escobar also noted that the repercussions would be widespread. “The story of how an al-Qaeda asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter — once again — that wilderness of mirrors that is the ‘war on terror,’” he noted. It would also compromise “the carefully constructed propaganda of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya.”

Abu Sufian Ibrahim bin Qumu: The former Guantanamo Bay inmate was considered by U.S. officials to be a “probable” member of al-Qaeda, according to government documents released by WikiLeaks. American investigators said bin Qumu represented a “medium-to-high risk.” Now, however, he is among the Libyan rebellion’s leadership.

The former-American-prisoner-turned-American-ally was captured in Pakistan after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He was then sent to Guantanamo Bay, where U.S. analysts determined in 2005 that he was a “former member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), [a] probable member of al Qaeda and a member of the North African Extremist Network.”

In addition to admittedly working for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, bin Qumu “has a long-term association with Islamic extremist jihad and members of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups,” the document explained. While in Pakistan’s tribal region, bin Qumu “communicated with likely extremist element[s] in Afghanistan via radio … , indicating a position of leadership.”

Citing intelligence obtained from the Libyan regime when it was still a U.S. terror-war ally, the secret report said bin Qumu was considered a “dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts.” He was known as one of the “extremist commanders of the Afghan Arabs,” the document stated, referring to jihadists in Afghanistan who were funded, armed, and trained by the U.S. government before apparently turning against it.

But even though American officials believed bin Qumu represented a “medium-to-high risk” and that “he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies,” he was sent to Libya in 2007 following six years in Guantanamo. The next year, he was set free by Gadhafi under an “amnesty” program.

In 2011, bin Qumu — with U.S. and international military support — reportedly led an anti-Gadhafi rebel militia known as the “Darnah Brigade” from the Libyan city of the same name. “The former enemy and prisoner of the United States is now an ally of sorts, a remarkable turnabout resulting from shifting American policies rather than any obvious change in Mr. Qumu,” the New York Times noted in a piece about the jihadist.

Prior to being sent to Guantanamo, bin Qumu already had a long, documented history of problems with the law, too. According to the leaked U.S. report, he was sentenced to 10 years in a Libyan prison for “murder, physical assault, armed assault and distributing narcotics” after serving in Gadhafi’s military. He escaped from prison in 1993 and fled through Egypt to Afghanistan. There, he trained in at least two al-Qaeda terror camps, according to news reports.

The U.K. Telegraph reported that bin Qumu eventually moved to Sudan, where he went to work for a company owned by former al-Qaeda boss Osama bin Laden. Finally he returned to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to help in the battle against U.S. forces before being captured by Pakistani police and shipped to Guantanamo.

Abdul Hakim al-Hasidi: The man identified by an article in the Telegraph and other reports as “the Libyan rebel leader” wasn’t always a friend of the West. In fact, he actually battled U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Afghanistan a decade ago. Al-Hasidi was captured in 2002, handed over to U.S. authorities, and eventually released in Libya in 2008. He promptly resumed his anti-American activities, admittedly recruiting dozens of jihadists to battle U.S. troops in Iraq with the LIFG.

In 2011, with U.S. and international air support, al-Hasidi was reportedly leading the anti-Gadhafi revolution. And in an interview with an Italian newspaper earlier this year, he admitted that the Islamic warriors he originally recruited to kill Western forces were fighting alongside Westerners in the war on Gadhafi.

The Telegraph, in an article entitled “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” quoted al-Hasidi as saying that his Iraq-war warriors “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” He also praised al-Qaeda, saying they are “good Muslims … fighting against the invader.”

In a more recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, however, his tone was more moderate. “Our view is starting to change of the U.S.,” he said. “If we hated the Americans 100 percent, today it is less than 50 percent.”

Al-Qaeda Wins Big

Backed by NATO warplanes and armed with fancy Western weapons, Libyan militias boldly marched across the nation. Along the way they freed thousands of Islamic extremists Gadhafi had in prison, many of whom were affiliated with al-Qaeda. They also raided Gadhafi’s weapons stockpiles — including tens of thousands of missiles capable of bringing down airplanes — and began shipping them out of the country. By late October the al-Qaeda flag was flying over the Benghazi courthouse, a key revolutionary headquarters.

Al-Qaeda leaders outside of Libya cheered them on the whole way.

When regimes in the region refused to support the Libyan rebels with sufficient vigor, al-Qaeda attacked those governments, as well. After an attack on an important Algerian military academy that left 18 dead, for example, a statement released by al-Qaeda said the strike was due to the regime in Algeria “continuing to support the Libyan dictator Gadhafi to fight against our brothers.”

This pattern of siding with, arming, and training forces that hold great antipathy toward the United States is continual. As with Gadhafi, before becoming enemies of the U.S. government, many of the Libyan Islamists — especially those affiliated with the LIFG and al-Qaeda — were American allies. In fact, the U.S. government — by its own admission — actually armed, trained, and funded bin Laden and his Muslim warriors in Afghanistan just a few decades ago to battle the Soviet occupation. Many of those fighters eventually went back to Libya, where Gadhafi and the U.S. government became their next targets.

Of course, none of this apparent madness went unnoticed. But the establishment press did its best to downplay the significance of ex-U.S. foes in the Libyan rebellion, describing rebel leaders as “reformed” Islamic militants, “former” jihadists, etc. Today, after killing Gadhafi, they are taking charge.

New Regime: Old Regime

Of course, not all of the new Libyan rulers are veteran jihadists who have battled U.S. troops. More than a few prominent leaders are members of the only slightly more “moderate” Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. Leading the Tripoli Governing Council, for instance, is the Brotherhood’s Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar. Among the new regime’s most important political and spiritual leaders is senior Brotherhood boss Ali Sallabi.

Many of the new rulers are also old rulers — former Gadhafi officials, in fact. The Interim Transitional Council (NTC)chairman and de facto head of state Mustafa Abdul Jalil, for example, was a top functionary in the previous regime. By 2007, he had become the “Justice” Minister, a position he held until this year. When the revolution broke out, Gadhafi sent Jalil to Benghazi to negotiate the release of hostages seized by rebels. He defected and became the official “leader” of the rebellion, though many Islamist fighters still refuse to recognize his purported authority.

The other public face of the new NTC regime, so-called Interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, was also a former Gadhafi regime functionary. In 2007, Jibril was appointed to lead Libya’s National Economic Development Board. And like Jalil, he defected to the rebels early on.

But even with senior Gadhafi regime figures close to the top, Sharia will be the law of the land in “liberated” Libya — assuming the current regime manages to maintain control. “We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government,” noted NTC Chairman Jalil during a celebration of Gadhafi’s killing. “The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.” Any laws that conflict with Islam, such as Gadhafi’s ban on polygamy, are “null and void legally,” Jalil explained.

The new Libyan constitution, if an official draft released in late August is any indication of what may emerge, will also create a hybrid between big-government socialism and Islamic law. Article 8, for instance, makes the government responsible for providing “an appropriate standard of living” for all citizens. Article 1 notes that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence.”

The first round of elections, according to NTC officials, should come within the next eight months. That vote would aim to create a committee to finalize a constitution and an official interim government. After the new constitution is approved, real elections would take place sometime in 2013 to elect a President and parliament. At least that is supposed to be the plan.

But following Egypt’s “revolution” to unseat despot Hosni Mubarak, the military junta that took over has repeatedly postponed elections. And instead of organizing a process for voting, the new regime has taken to mowing down Christian protesters in Cairo who were upset over repeated attacks on their churches. In Tunisia, Libya’s neighbor to the west, elections were held after despot Ben Ali fled the country. Those resulted in a landslide win for Islamism.

Uncivil War

Almost from the beginning of the civil war, the rebels have been accused of monstrous war crimes and wide-scale barbarity — some of it too horrendous even to mention. In the early weeks and months, gruesome videos surfaced online showing beheadings, lynchings, and other crimes perpetrated by rebel forces, proving that at least some of the allegations are true.

Soon the rebels’ rage focused on people with dark skin in what some analysts called genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” sparking condemnation worldwide from human-rights groups and officials. Reports and photographic evidence indicate that atrocities up to and including mass executions took place. And many black victims were found with their hands bound behind their backs and bullets through their skulls.

Horrific internment camps, systematic rape, rampant torture, lynching, and looting of businesses owned by blacks were all reported as well. Countless sub-Saharan Africans were forced to flee their homes in Libya to avoid the same fate. Black migrant workers probably suffered the most.

The campaign of racist terror began shortly after the Benghazi uprising in February, when rumors that Gadhafi hired black mercenaries began circulating. As insurgent forces solidified their grip over most of Libya, their race-based persecution quickly intensified. Entire cities and towns formerly occupied by blacks were ultimately ethnically cleansed and destroyed.

“The Brigade for Purging Slaves, Black Skin” — apparently a rebel slogan — was found months ago scrawled all along the road to Tawarga. By mid-September, the coastal city of about 10,000 mostly black residents had essentially been wiped off the map. Rebel forces rounded up the remaining inhabitants and reportedly shipped them to camps, although reporters searching for the former residents were not able to locate them. Homes, businesses, and schools were then looted before being burned to the ground.

Finally, graffiti reading “slaves,” “negroes,” and “abeed” — a derogatory term for blacks — was painted all over the ruins by NATO’s revolutionaries. The former city then became a “closed military area,” according to rebels guarding a checkpoint interviewed by the McClatchy news service. “Tawarga no longer exists,” a rebel commander told the Wall Street Journal. Another rebel fighter boasted: “We are setting it on fire to prevent anyone from living here again.”

In late August, the U.K.’s Independent reported that a makeshift hospital had become a ghastly crime scene. Dozens of men, almost all of them black, were murdered and left to rot — some of them still hooked up to medical equipment. “The killings were pitiless,” the paper observed. “Many of [the victims] had their hands tied behind their back, either with plastic handcuffs or ropes. One had a scarf stuffed into his mouth.”

Amnesty International’s Nicolas Beger condemned the wanton savagery in an interview with the Associated Press, saying sub-Saharan Africans “are at real risk of being taken from their work or their homes or the street to be tortured or killed.” A report released by the organization noted that Gadhafi’s regime had perpetrated widespread abuses. But rebel forces “have also committed human rights abuses, in some cases amounting to war crimes.”

Libya’s Future: More War?

Even as the NTC declared Libya “liberated” following the violent death of Gadhafi, analysts were warning that civil war might continue to rage on as loyalists, militia groups, and armed factions struggled to seize power. And it is already happening.

Western leaders demanded that all of the revolutionary groups unify behind the NTC. But widely divergent interests — including remaining pro-Gadhafi forces and victims of NATO bombings and rebel brutality — would seem to make that a difficult proposition, according to Libyans and outside analysts.

There are many critical and possibly irreconcilable fault lines dividing Libyan society — Islamists, liberals, tribal chiefs, ethnic groups, Gadhafi loyalists, desert nomads, regional factions, and more. Some of the competing groups and interests were able to unite around deposing the Libyan government. But now that it is officially ousted, the already-tense situation is becoming even more complex.

Various self-appointed councils, committees, militias, and brigades continue bickering, with some even producing arrest warrants for leaders of others. And many of the groups and chiefs have so far refused to recognize the NTC as the new legitimate regime. “With so many armed groups operating in Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya, a peaceful resolution to the question of who should take power is unlikely,” noted an analysis by Stratfor, a global intelligence firm. “The shape of the new Libya is highly uncertain, but what is clear is that the NTC is not going to simply take control where Gadhafi left off.”

More violence is likely. And tensions are so high that some experts have suggested that a second “civil war” is a distinct possibility as the power struggle between different armed coalitions continues to gain strength. “The unique common goal for all the NTC factions was to defeat Gadhafi and clear the ground for building a new Libyan authority. So in a way Gadhafi continued to keep the country united even during the conflict,” noted Gabriele Iacovino, a North Africa analyst at the Italy-based International Studies Centre. “Now Gadhafi is dead and who knows what will happen next.”

Divisions between the pro- and anti-Gadhafi camps remain strong, too. As rebel forces overtook Gadhafi strongholds, countless suspected supporters of the regime were arrested, tortured, and even executed without trial. But others escaped to fight another day. A week after Gadhafi was killed, Reuters reported that furious tribesmen were already waging an insurgency against the new regime.

Even with overwhelming assistance from the most powerful military alliance in the world, it took nearly eight months to officially bring down Gadhafi — indicating a strong level of resistance against the new regime or its foreign backers that will not be easy to quell. And Gadhafi reportedly distributed huge stockpiles of wealth and arms among loyalists nationwide before his demise in preparation for what his regime vowed would be a long-lasting and bloody insurgency.

Western leaders — praising the mission as a success and model to be followed in the future — have promised to continue showering the new Libyan regime with taxpayer money for as long as necessary. The NTC asked NATO to stay to fight off the growing insurgency. But the UN voted on October 27 to end international military operations, and NATO said it planned to withdraw by the end of the month.

By November, Libyan weapons were popping up all over the region — often in the hands of anti-Israel militants near Gaza. Much of Libya was in ruins. Bloated bodies were decomposing on the streets as fighting and gun battles continued to rage.

Critics and pessimists were warning that the real disasters were still to come, complaining that Libya was just the latest in an endless parade of tragic U.S. foreign policy fiascos that would blow up in America’s face. Western leaders, meanwhile, were tripping over themselves to celebrate the success.
This article is an example of the exclusive content that's only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital options available! For more information, click here.
Related article:
Brief History of Gadhafi and His Regime